1. Respondents vide Advertisement Notice dated 5th March, 2003 sought candidature of eligible candidates for appointment of Prosecuting Officers in the J&K Police, on the terms and conditions as contained in the said advertisement. 2. It is contended that, petitioners along with other candidates applied and cleared the two, out of three, phases of selection viz. physical test and the written test. Thereafter respondents prepared a selection list to the exclusion of petitioners and many others. 3. It appears that the selection so made had been challenged by virtue of various writ petitions being SWP Nos. 1795/2003,1863/2003 and 1382/2004 and all the three writ petitions were disposed of by a common judgment dated 6th October, 2009. All the grounds urged in these writ petitions were dealt with and ultimately the court agreed with the contention of the writ petitioners of the writ petitions (supra) that respondents have acted in a most illegal manner in excluding the petitioners from the process of selection, and accordingly, a direction was passed in the name of respondents to consider the appointment of petitioners also against the posts available and pass appropriate orders in this behalf within a period of six weeks. 4. It is reiterated herein, at the cost of repetition, that this court had shown inclination to even quash the selection of the private respondents, but having regard to the tenure they had worked on the said posts, the quashment of appointments was thought to be harsh. 5. Respondents have filed reply and resisted the petition. It is averred therein, that petitioners in this writ petition cannot be considered for appointment on the analogy of others who stand appointed pursuant to common judgment supra, because of the fact that they did not join the proceedings. It is admitted, however, by the respondents that there are some petitioners in the present petition who have secured higher merit than those who stand appointed pursuant to common judgment supra. 6. Heard and considered. 7. The matter in controversy appears to be no different than the one that was projected in terms of the writ petitions decided by this court vide judgment and order dated 6th October, 2009, and thereafter again in terms of judgment and order dated 26th March, 2012 passed in SWP No. 554/2012. 6. Heard and considered. 7. The matter in controversy appears to be no different than the one that was projected in terms of the writ petitions decided by this court vide judgment and order dated 6th October, 2009, and thereafter again in terms of judgment and order dated 26th March, 2012 passed in SWP No. 554/2012. Some of the grounds of attack, in those writ petitions were undoubtedly different than the one adopted in this writ petition, however, the grievance projected is quite similar, the arbitrary and mechanical exclusion of petitioners from the selection process. 8. Learned Senior Additional Advocate General vehemently argued that petitioners' have no case and cannot be considered for appointment as they have chosen to watch the proceedings from the fence. 9. On the other hand Mr. Qayoom argued that petitioners' case is squarely covered by the judgments and orders supra because respondents have not challenged those judgments and the directions hold good as on today. He further argued that it is beaten law of the land that technicalities should not prevail over substantial justice; therefore, the petitioners' late approach to this court should not come in their way to seek redressal of their genuine grievances. 10. There seems to be no end to the challenge put to the selection and appointment of prosecuting officers right from the year it came to be issued by the respondent-department, as by virtue of the present petition, the number of writ petitions throwing challenge to it has gone up to five. The challenges so thrown are not unreasonable either. 11. The perusal of the record in the shape of "Recruitment Register of Prosecuting Officers 2003" produced by Mr. Magray, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, during the course of arguments, would reveal that there are certain number of petitioners who have been excluded from the selection process quite arbitrarily. 12. Earlier when a batch of writ petitions was disposed of this court while allowing those writ petitions in very explicit terms observed that respondents have acted "in a most illegal manner" and accordingly directed respondents to consider, for appointment, the petitioners of those writ petitions too. The respondents on their part were required to pass requisite orders, besides, to have a relook at the exercise so made of course without disturbing the set up already made. The respondents on their part were required to pass requisite orders, besides, to have a relook at the exercise so made of course without disturbing the set up already made. A relook was all the more important for the reason that some glaring defects were referred to, and substantiated thereafter by the records also. Had that relook been given to the said exercise, the petitioners' in all the writ petitions would probably have found their place in the select list and appointed also, because the vacancies, as contended, are available with the respondent-department. 13. The argument of the respondents' that the benefit of selection and appointment cannot be extended to the petitioners for their having approached the court late, though attractive, is without force, as the substantial justice cannot be made the casualty for technicality to prevail. More importantly for the reason that petitioners claim, of having been approaching the respondents for redressal of their grievances, has not been denied by the respondents. Petitioners also claim to have obtained their merit position after implementation of the Jammu and Kashmir Right to Information Act, 2009. These factors being important, in deciding this aspect, cannot be lost sight of. 14. In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents in the result are directed to consider extending the same benefit to the petitioners as has been accorded to the writ petitioners of SWP Nos. 1795/2003, 1863/2003 and 1382/2004, which were disposed of vide judgment and order dated 6th October, 2009. This exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date copy of this judgment and order is served upon them. 15. Record be returned to Mr. Magray.